On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 08:53:34PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> |
> | >Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in
> | >1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear.
> | >
> | All the
As GCC 4.1 is now moving into prerelease state I have had another
look at the GCC 4.1 compile failures. I do not really understand them;
if this is how it should be or if GCC 4.1 has regressed.
Anyhow, this patch makes LyX compile. Do any of you have an opinion if
this is our bug or if it is a GC
Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| >Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in
| >1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear.
| >
| All the change tracking stuff should go in. It can't get worse.
Which part of the CT featur
Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The important point is that we should NOT discuss on the IMPORTANCE of
| a patch. We are wasting energy this way. Let's discuss the patches
| themselves.
The patches themselves (if they are correct) are not important, it
_is_ what they fix and and the IM
"Kayvan A. Sylvan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Here's what I am seeing. Any ideas?
|
| make[4]: Entering directory
`/home/kayvan/src/lyx/qtbuild/boost/libs/filesystem/src'
| make PCH_FLAGS= pch-file
| make[5]: Entering directory
`/home/kayvan/src/lyx/qtbuild/boost/libs/filesystem/src'
| g++ -
Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| >| Anyway, I attached again the last unchanged patch and the new
| >| "it_vector.h" header. Jean-Marc, if you could test this after 1.4.0,
| >| I think it could be a good candidate for 1.4.1.
| >
| >I must admit that I'd p
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 06:16:56PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes a écrit :
> >Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
> >>>"Andre" == Andre Poenitz
> >>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>writes:
> >>
> Is it to say that you will not allow the changes I've planned in my
> T
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 04:06:59PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> I'm afraid this would need some changes to "CutAndPaste.C" because there
> is a problem with the local c-like static variable theCuts. Apparently
> the limited_stack class does not work well with my version of
> ParagraphList:
Am Sonntag, 19. Februar 2006 18:32 schrieb Daniel Watkins:
> I've never really looked at RPM spec files before, so I am a little
> confused. I (think I) know %{name} refers to the package name (i.e. LyX)
> but can't figure out what directory %{_datadir} referring to. I'd
> appreciate it if someone
Georg Baum wrote:
> Yes. You can run the configure script without LyX, look at the %post macro
> in the rpm spec file development/lyx.spec.in.
Thanks for the quick response. In development/lyx.spec.in, there is the
following line:
cd %{_datadir}/%{name}
I've never really looked at RPM spe
Am Sonntag, 19. Februar 2006 18:02 schrieb Daniel Watkins:
> Sorry to reply to my own message, but is there a way of just running a
LyX
> reconfigure from the command line (that'll exit immediate after the
> reconfig)? I'd like to add it to the post-install section of the ebuild,
to
> get LyX ope
I wrote:
> I then used Edit > Reconfigure...
Sorry to reply to my own message, but is there a way of just running a LyX
reconfigure from the command line (that'll exit immediate after the
reconfig)? I'd like to add it to the post-install section of the ebuild, to
get LyX operational faster.
Dan
Hi list,
More ebuild stuff (though, having discovered the lack of an ebuild for the
most recent stable LyX version, I've switched from 1.4.0pre5 to 1.3.7).
When I first install LyX, Edit > Preferences > File Formats has no entries
under programs. I then used Edit > Reconfigure, which did fill in so
Here's what I am seeing. Any ideas?
make[4]: Entering directory
`/home/kayvan/src/lyx/qtbuild/boost/libs/filesystem/src'
make PCH_FLAGS= pch-file
make[5]: Entering directory
`/home/kayvan/src/lyx/qtbuild/boost/libs/filesystem/src'
g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../../../../lyx/boost/libs/filesyste
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 05:06:37PM +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > > If you all are confident in the 2212 fix, it can go in.
> >
> > I am confident, but it's near-useless without also multi-par change
> > tracking (which would make this a useable feature). Cosmetic, a
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in
1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear.
All the change tracking stuff should go in. It can't get worse.
Michael
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in
1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear.
Due to the fact that everybody has a different opinion on what must be
included in 1.4.0, I would like to propose a different approach:
1. Let
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| Anyway, I attached again the last unchanged patch and the new
| "it_vector.h" header. Jean-Marc, if you could test this after 1.4.0,
| I think it could be a good candidate for 1.4.1.
I must admit that I'd prefere it to be for 1.5 only. My guess is that
the implemen
Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > If you all are confident in the 2212 fix, it can go in.
>
> I am confident, but it's near-useless without also multi-par change
> tracking (which would make this a useable feature). Cosmetic, as
> well. So... no, not now.
Do you mean because change tracking is not useable
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 04:01:14PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | > Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in
> | > 1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear.
> |
> | John targetted some bugs to 1.4.0 recently.
Am Sonntag, 19. Februar 2006 16:01 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
> Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | 2251 (well understood and tested)
>
> But only cosmetic. I do not understand why it cannot wait.
Sure it is not so important, but I do not understand why it should wait.
What do you expe
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Have anyone done any testing on 2243 at all?
> If not, this is not going into 1.4.0, if it is tested I may be swayed.
I have tested it with an older version of preview-latex and can confirm that
this still works.
I cannot say anything about the newer versions of prev
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | 1161 (because this is a UI change that is best done in a major release)
>
> I am ok with this one... as long as you german guys thing this is the
> right fix.
I think we all agree. I'll put it in.
Jürgen
Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in
| > 1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear.
|
| John targetted some bugs to 1.4.0 recently. Of these, I would like to see
| the following in 1.4.0:
|
| 2251 (well understo
Am Sonntag, 19. Februar 2006 15:30 schrieb Daniel Watkins:
> Hi list,
> Another query relating to my ebuild work. The creator of the last ebuild
> (for 1.4.0pre3) has set Qt up as a compile-time dependency only but has
> left a note saying he is unsure if this is accurate. Does LyX 1.4.0pre5
> (and
Daniel Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hi list,
| Another query relating to my ebuild work. The creator of the last ebuild
| (for 1.4.0pre3) has set Qt up as a compile-time dependency only but has
| left a note saying he is unsure if this is accurate. Does LyX 1.4.0pre5
| (and we're assuming
Hi list,
Another query relating to my ebuild work. The creator of the last ebuild
(for 1.4.0pre3) has set Qt up as a compile-time dependency only but has
left a note saying he is unsure if this is accurate. Does LyX 1.4.0pre5
(and we're assuming Qt is being used) need Qt to run or only to compile?
Am Sonntag, 19. Februar 2006 13:30 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes:
> I'll try to explain why am am just not releasing 1.4.0 right away: I
> continue to see small dribble of work that obviously some people deem
> very important for a release.
I believe that this is a big misunderstanding: People do
Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in
| > 1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear.
|
| LyX's default banner.ppm ;-)
:-) I'll do that when I make the branch.
--
Lg
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| #ifndef IT_VECTOR_H
| #define IT_VECTOR_H
|
| #include
| #include
|
| #include "debug.h"
Please change order of includes. The rule is: most specific first,
most general last.
| /// vector of container iterator.
| /**
| This templatized class pr
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Angus, I did removed the "for_each" methods but I let the inner class
| > iterator and const_iterator because they could be useful in the future.
| > Beside that they provide already "operator+=". I am
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Developer, if you have _anyting_ that you feel _must_ be included in
> 1.4.0, the time is to state so now, loud and clear.
LyX's default banner.ppm ;-)
Jürgen
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Guys,
|
| I have tested this new approach pretty extensively:
| - opened all my lyx documents+lyx help doc
| - played with them, added/erased paragraph randomly,
| - cut/copy/past large selection, math, graphics,
| - undo/redo, export to latex, expo
"John McCabe-Dansted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 2/19/06, Daniel Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > I've seen mention of a 1.4.0pre5 in this group and was wondering if the
| > 1.4.0pre3 version mentioned on the LyX website is still the most recent
| > snapshot release. I ask this because
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | At the moment it seems that everyone, without exception, is frustrated
> | by the current deadlock.
>
> I'll try to explain why am am just not releasing 1.4.0 right away: I
> continue to see small dribble of work that o
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> writes:
>
> Angus> Is it just me, or does the LyX icon here look rubbish?
> Angus> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.editors.lyx.devel/53215
>
> Angus> Especially when it's compared to Martin's and Jean-Marc's
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| At the moment it seems that everyone, without exception, is frustrated by the
| current deadlock.
I'll try to explain why am am just not releasing 1.4.0 right away: I
continue to see small dribble of work that obviously some people deem
very important f
37 matches
Mail list logo
